Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[Val1]

Sooo, any bets court may be delayed in the morning due to this kerfuffle?

 

[Viper]

Sooo, any bets court may be delayed in the morning due to this kerfuffle?

Delayed? No. It will be tomorrow's center of attention for the court. Uncle Arnold messed up big time with this. Him and his PR and book deal and all, not thought out. Cheers to that! LOL!

 

[zwiebel]

Definitely no hands. I wonder if Prof Derman had seen the video before he testified?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oment-shot-Reeva-Steenkamp-bathroom-door.html

 

[Figuring]

Hi! I've been on WS a while, in a few other forums. Been following the OP trial closely, but never thought to look here for a forum, until tonight! Wish I had. So many great thoughts from you all!!

I have a question about the leaked video this weekend. I'm wondering what you guys think of this quote, from OP's spokesperson, Anneliese Burgess:

"Channel 7 purchased this footage unlawfully," said Burgess, adding that the broadcaster had agreed not to air the material until the end of the trial. (From here: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...tage-might-result-in-mistrial-expert-20140706)

If the procurement was unlawful, what would she know about the deal to not broadcast till after trial?! How would she know (already, from outside) what kind of (illegal?) deal had been struck?

 

[vanatos]

My personal opinion is that, after the trial was over and we are in the time period of Masipa figuring out her judgement.
Thats when they wanted to release the video, in the hopes of shoring public opinion and swaying masipa outside the court room.

But it seem's something went wrong, i am surprised it aired in Australia, i can imagine they gave it to us aussies, and because we are such a backwater country no one thinks about, they kind of forgot about it.

It does seem to have been made quite awhile ago and prepared beforehand, just after Pistorius' time on the stand.

 

[K.T]

1. It’s standard practice to tell interview subjects when the report will air.
2. Though, in exclusive like these, to stop leaks (irony) producers may tell the subjects only just before the airing/preview (contracts differ).
3. I think Roder definitely, and to a lesser extent Steenkamps, the lawyer et al, would have had prior notice (if only day/s before preview/promo aired)
4. Obviously Roder and his company ‘The Evidence Room’ had the greatest input in the construction and of the special, his interview seems to be the lead, therefore it appears that Pistorius team were planning on this release of information.
5. I think Steenkamp & friend's lawyer informed Nel if they found out just before the special would air - probably they would have had general hints about The Evidence Room involvement. This is not certain, producers often do whatever they want to get what they need.
6. Unfortunately Nel could not know exactly what was in Roder/Evidence Room’s video and recreation details beforehand.
7. Nel may have keep Derman on stand longer because of this, but he obviously still needed time to query the Weskoppies psychiatrist’s about the overly sympathetic psychologist’s report and investigate findings on disability mindset.

 

[zwiebel]

The details OP's doctors gave about his gait - having to keep his left leg bent because the heel pad can snap, and the heel pad being rotated so it's not where it should be....that all seems to be confirmed by the video.

But what they said about his almost total lack of balance on his stumps isn't.

 

[zwiebel]

My personal opinion is that, after the trial was over and we are in the time period of Masipa figuring out her judgement.
Thats when they wanted to release the video, in the hopes of shoring public opinion and swaying masipa outside the court room.

But it seem's something went wrong, i am surprised it aired in Australia, i can imagine they gave it to us aussies, and because we are such a backwater country no one thinks about, they kind of forgot about it.

It does seem to have been made quite awhile ago and prepared beforehand, just after Pistorius' time on the stand.

There's something about Australia. We waited forever for Bob's disappeared episode to air and it got put back and back and really looked like it had been pulled - then it suddenly popped up in Australia, without warning!

Aussies kindly let us know what was in it, as it couldn't be viewed anywhere else.

 

[Figuring]

1. It’s standard practice to tell interview subjects when the report will air.
2. Though, in exclusive like these, to stop leaks (irony) producers may tell the subjects only just before the airing/preview (contracts differ).
3. I think Roder definitely, and to a lesser extent Steenkamps, the lawyer et al, would have had prior notice (if only day/s before preview/promo aired)
4. Obviously Roder and his company ‘The Evidence Room’ had the greatest input in the construction and of the special, his interview seems to be the lead, therefore it appears that Pistorius team were planning on this release of information.
5. I think Steenkamp & friend's lawyer informed Nel when the special would air - probably they would have had general hints about The Evidence Room involvement.
6. Unfortunately Nel could not know exactly what was in Roder/Evidence Room’s video and recreation details beforehand.
7. Nel may have keep Derman on stand longer because of this, but he obviously still needed time to query the Weskoppies psychiatrist’s about the overly sympathetic psychologist’s report and investigate findings on disability mindset.

Thanks, this is quite helpful. You're right--oftentimes, when something is about to go to air, people often asked to comment or are persuaded to participate in something explosive in order to "provide their side." So whoever didn't instigate the release of this tape could also have had some degree of forewarning... I was wondering for sure how Reeva's parents are involved with the production, might they have tipped the hat to Nel etc. Of course, hard to say!

Anyway, still confuses me how/if this was obtained "illegally." Hard to imagine Roder from The Evidence Room wants international, bad publicity? Or that whatever the station paid him upfront can be worth more than a future lawsuit would cost? He is an avowed OP supporter. So it makes me wonder, since this video to a large extent contradicts OP's verson (running vs. statement of not running; when his legs were put on; arm exteded with gun, for example), how did Roder think it would help OP to release this?!

 

[zwiebel]

Has this been posted? Look at the picture of OP they are running with the article.

Ironic that the link title says 'legal team call foul play'. Foul play indeed.

http://ewn.co.za/2014/07/06/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Pistorius-legal-team-cry-foul

 

[K.T]

Anyway, still confuses me how/if this was obtained "illegally." Hard to imagine Roger from The Evidence Room wants international, bad publicity? Or that whatever the station paid him upfront can be worth more than a future lawsuit would cost? He is an avowed OP supporter. So it makes me wonder, since this video to a large extent contradicts OP's verson (running vs. statement of not running; when his legs were put on; arm exteded with gun, for example), how did Roger think it would help OP to release this?!<snipped>

Still think its unlikely Scott Roder would work on this report without Pistorius&#8217; support, the company has too much to lose for a one-off payment from a channel. It&#8217;s problematic for Pistorius team to say the channel &#8220;agreed to not air the footage&#8221; until a certain date. As other have posted, that actually seems to show they've been negotiating with the channel for some time.

IMO, it&#8217;s a misdirection strategy for the Pistorius team, trying to re-direct blame from the client.

• Like the latest story about &#8216;House That Reeva and Oscar Were Going To Live&#8217; (but he was looking to relocate pre-Steenkamp&#8230 it&#8217;s about trying to encourage or implant a beneficial narrative.
• The strategy is to that the public understands how &#8216;wronged&#8217; their client is &#8211; hence use of &#8216;illegal breach&#8221; of an agreement and mercenary &#8220;staggering of trust&#8221;&#8230;
• For the defense the possible benefit is that it may cause a mistrial, though it&#8217;s unlikely, still the speculation is useful
• Benefit is in public relations trying to get a section of the public to see their client, on stumps, highlighting disability, as victimized by society, media and &#8216;betrayed&#8217; by their own &#8216;people&#8217; they trusted.
• Trying to create a misdirection to focus again for amorphous &#8216;reasonable doubt&#8217;.
• The footage may seem detrimental if seen from a legal/technical perspective, yet the tactic may be for longer benefit?
• They hung out Pistorius&#8217; mother&#8217;s &#8216;anxious&#8217; and &#8216;alcohol-abusing&#8217; mothering, they now show Pistorius&#8217; stumps and gait to perhaps gain sympathy. They appear to want the &#8216;tragedy for all&#8217; angle - the important point is that Pistorius is the victim too.

 

[Jake18]

I've no time for in depth discussion right now but my impression was that there was nothing new and nothing partic supportive of OP's version that was new, he seems to be speaking in a higher tone of voice in the courtroom, the bat shots vs gun shots sound very different and he is much, much more mobile on his stumps than the court has been led to believe.

 

[Figuring]

Still think its unlikely Scott Roder would work on this report without Pistorius&#8217; support, the company has too much to lose for a one-off payment from a channel. It&#8217;s problematic for Pistorius team to say the channel &#8220;agreed to not air the footage&#8221; until a certain date. As other have posted, that actually seems to show they've been negotiating with the channel for some time.

IMO, it&#8217;s a misdirection strategy for the Pistorius team, trying to re-direct blame from the client.

• Like the latest story about &#8216;House That Reeva and Oscar Were Going To Live&#8217; (but he was looking to relocate pre-Steenkamp&#8230 it&#8217;s about trying to encourage or implant a beneficial narrative.
• The strategy is to that the public understands how &#8216;wronged&#8217; their client is &#8211; hence use of &#8216;illegal breach&#8221; of an agreement and mercenary &#8220;staggering of trust&#8221;&#8230;
• For the defense the possible benefit is that it may cause a mistrial, though it&#8217;s unlikely, still the speculation is useful
• Benefit is in public relations trying to get a section of the public to see their client, on stumps, highlighting disability, as victimized by society, media and &#8216;betrayed&#8217; by their own &#8216;people&#8217; they trusted.
• Trying to create a misdirection to focus again for amorphous &#8216;reasonable doubt&#8217;.
• The footage may seem detrimental if seen from a legal/technical perspective, yet the tactic may be for longer benefit?
• They hung out Pistorius&#8217; mother&#8217;s &#8216;anxious&#8217; and &#8216;alcohol-abusing&#8217; mothering, they now show Pistorius&#8217; stumps and gait to perhaps gain sympathy. They appear to want the &#8216;tragedy for all&#8217; angle - the important point is that Pistorius is the victim too.

I think you are probably 100% right! That house article was so weird too! Totally out of nowhere. The future house wasn't even part of his evidence at trial, from what I recall, where he tried to prove his (up till then, unstated) love for RS, but didn't even know her birthday...

It seems to me that he/his team has "reputation rehab" on the brain, in the event he'll be found not guilty. Poor vulnerable guy, all alone in a mansion bought for lovers...

Thanks for your insight. Really can't imagine what's going to happen at trial tonight (3 hours from now for me, at 3:30am)!

 

[Zim]

Maybe 'The Evidence Room' has not been paid ?

 

[supernovaNic]

Two hours until court starts, right? Thanks !! 3:00 central time?

 

[K.T]

I know I just typed all those points but, but, but, another part thinks perhaps they don't have such strategy because it's actually not that sophisticated so far.
It's just more hot-mess defense

 

[JudgeJudi]

I haven't seen that the show's on You Tube yet. I've spent many, many hours transcribing it its entirety and I'm just about to start typing it up. I'll do it in segments. As this was intended to be OP's version, I thought it would be very useful to have the text as a permanent record here. I doubt very much I'll have it finished in time for tonight but I'll try.

I missed the first two sets of the Wimbledon final working on this but at least I saw the brilliant last 3 sets. I'm totally knackered now.

Totally off topic, yesterday I had to log in many, many times. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? Before it would stay for more than a day but not so now.

Secondly, the thanks problem from before the upgrade is still the same too. Thanks doesn't appear many times and you have to refresh. I really wish both these issues would be addressed. Is anyone else having the login problem or is it just me. Internet's very, very slow so I won't be surprised if I can't get a feed tonight. Maybe the satellites are pointing in the wrong direction.

ETA: As soon as I hit tried to execute this post, pop up box saying I wasn't logged in. I'm going insane.

 

[supernovaNic]

Part 1 is on Youtube!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HWA8_t5_pw

 

[Giles]

[EDIT - THESE LINKS NO LONGER WORK}

I can't find part one, but here are parts 2, 3 & 4 of yesterdays documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykuUPSSx5b8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zgH8uTsrLA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM-howHAG3g

 

[4MrsB]

Brian Webber is part of the DT. The statement issued earlier today clearly says the defense hired The Evidence Room for trial preparation purposes.

Nel will have a FIT if a mistrial is declared because of this.

Yes, he would probably pop a blood vessel. But doesn't seem to me that a mistrial would be a concern. (As long as the court or state didn't have anything to do with its release. Which I don't think anyone for a second thinks that.)

As long as the Judge and her Assessor's have not viewed it, there is no problem. Highly likely they stay clear of outside media influences during trials.

However, Nel "MAY" want to argue before the court, in effort to present a small snippet to Judge (since testimony by Dr D contradicts what's seen in video) to show OP's actual mobility on stumps. But I think it's very unlikely Judge would allow it. All DT has to state is that it was different circumstances (lighted room, on rug, etc) and not good comparison, never intended for court. They could even state Evidence Room Co. manipulated aspects of it (i.e. - speed etc) and therefore not the real deal. And therefore she would not allow it. Nel likely knows this and won't even attempt it - unless he just wants to rattle DT cage (most likely, Oldwage's cage, as he's been a bit "uppity" to Nel during the cross of this witness). IMO.

I guess we'll know in a little over an hour. :happydance: